Acta neurochirurgica · 2022
Research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies: an analysis of the literature.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hug Nicholas F, Smith Brandon W, Sakamuri Sarada, Jensen Michael, Purger David A, Spinner Robert J, Wilson Thomas J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There is a strong need for a set of consensus outcomes to be utilized for future studies on cubital tunnel syndrome. The goal was to assess the outcome measures utilized in the cubital tunnel syndrome literature as a way of measuring popularity/acceptability and then to perform a literature review for the most commonly used outcomes.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used.
RESULTS: A composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%).
DISCUSSION: Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used.
RESULTS: A composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%).
DISCUSSION: Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.